I noticed yesterday that Chrome no longer displays a “+” inside of the new tab button.

Above: the new tab button for the previous versions of Chrome on the left and the new tab button on the right.

At first, I thought it was a bug. I quit and restarted Chrome with the same results. I tweeted about it and quickly got a few confirmations that it’s not an issue just on my computer, but a recent change in Chrome, and a few other people thought it was a bug as well.

I’m all for continually refining and simplifying your user interface, but this change makes no sense to me. For a new user, there is no context or hints as to the purpose of the button, not even a tooltip. For existing users, it looks like something is broken. No space was saved as the button is the same size, and I don’t even think it’s a visual improvement as the button is now just leaf-like blob floating there. I can’t think of another interface where there is a button that is completely devoid of any text or icons to give some clues to its function.

Luckily, since Chrome is open-source, we can gain at least a little insight into the decision behind this change. I dug up this fairly long thread, in which almost every commenter explains they thought it was a bug or glitch. Almost everyone also preferred the old button, and wanted the change reverted. I couldn’t find a real reason the change was made, but we do get what seems like a very Google justification from someone on the Chromium team:

User experience research on our end seems to have confirmed that this change does not decrease usability and in fact can lead to an overall improvement in people’s perceptions of the UI (some participants described the change as “cleaner” or “neater”). (link)

Later on in the thread, from someone else on the Chromium team reporting user feedback:

The “+” button to open a new tab is not showing up in Chrome browser. Users are requesting to restore the plus sign as a visual aid to its purpose, which also does not have a tool-tip…

10+ reports were submitted in GoogleFeedback in last two days about this issue. (link)

I’m baffled by this change. It seems like a minor issue, but it’s also completely arbitrary, and I think it could have some real usability issues. I have a feeling we’ll see the plus sign return in a future version of Chrome.

A lot of people talk about polishing their site/app/product. Usually referred to in the sense of working on the little details and improving the overall user experience. I think that’s great, and something everyone should spend a lot of time doing, but I want to propose that people spend more time “sanding”. Sure, it’s not quite as sexy of a term, and both polishing and sanding both have the end result of making a thing smooth, but they take different paths to get there. Polishing will make the surface smooth and shiny, but sometimes that is just putting lipstick on a pig. You now have a high-gloss shine, but did you really make it better, or just make it sparkle?

Sanding on the other hand has a different connotation. When you say you’re going to sand something, there is a clear idea about what action you’re taking, and what the desired result is. Sanding is a reductive process, you’re actively removing material. You’re smoothing down the corners and getting rid of the rough edges, and I think that should be the goal. Where is this app standing in the user’s way? If you look, you’ll always find a corner that can be sanded down.

It’s really just semantics, but I think you need to do both. If you only have time for one, I’d say sand. I don’t care how nice the surface of the desk is if it wobbles because the legs are uneven.

I just came across an interesting article by Daniel Kennett about the problems with Reeder for Mac’s UI. He uses Fitts’s Law as the basis for describing why the app’s interface doesn’t work. I agree with his assessment in theory. But in practice, I’ve been using Reeder for Mac since it came out, and I haven’t had any problems or frustrations at all (as it pertains to hitting targets with a mouse).

I haven’t studied Fitts’s Law extensively, but it seems to me that it may not be nearly as relevant as it once was. Certainly, I’m not the average user. I’m a developer and use the computer all day. But even so, most people in my generation probably use a computer just as much on a daily basis. Sure, they may not know all the ins and outs, but they’re more than a little familiar with using the mouse and I don’t think they’d have any difficulty using the app either. Fitts’s Law was formulated in 1954 before anyone had ever used a mouse based interface, before they’d ever seen a computer. Undoubtedly, it was important for the first users, and still is important for people new to computers, like children and the Amish. That’s why those interfaces typically have large, easy to hit buttons (for children I mean, I’ve never seen an Amish interface). But I think long-term experience has to be taken into account. Here’s an interesting line from the wikipedia article:

It describes untrained movements, not movements that are executed after months or years of practice (though some argue that Fitts’s law models behaviour that is so low level that extensive training doesn’t make much difference).

Seems to me that is the key point: is Fitts’s Law just as relevant when the user has extensive experience using a computer, possibly 10-20 years? I’m not really sure, but my gut says no. If I analyzed every app I used for adherence to Fitts’s Law, I’m sure they would all fail, but I don’t have problems using them. Any web browser would most likely be deemed unusable due to the size of the close buttons on the tabs, but most users seem to do just fine.

Of course, following Fitts’s Law can’t hurt, and I think it’s good to keep in mind as you design an interface. If you follow it religiously with large targets with extra padding, your app would no doubt be easier to use. But I feel that it alone shouldn’t be used as justification for why an interface doesn’t work. In Reeder’s case, I feel the buttons are a good size and well spaced. The app’s not perfect (or finished), but none of my problems with it have to do with using the mouse.

Every time Apple releases a new product, it becomes more and more clear that no other company really gets it. The next war for winning consumers’ hearts - in both hardware and software - will not be based on tech specs, but on usability and user experience. Computers are already way faster than the majority of people need. Things like the iPhone and iPad don’t even mention specs like processor speed or RAM anymore because it really doesn’t matter. What matters is the experience. Apple understands this, and has been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years because this is what they do best.

Take for example the difference in the remotes between the Apple TV and Google TV:

Apple TV remote. A simple 6-button remote that’s easy to use and hold. Even if you weren’t sure what each button does, you could figure it in a few seconds.

Sony - Google TV remote. A monstrosity of a remote, jam packed with a ton of buttons and full qwerty keyboard. This remote looks like it can fly a RC helicopter and should also print labels. I can’t imagine that it’s intuitive, even for the techiest folk among us.

Logitech - Google TV remote. A desktop-size keyboard with built-in track pad. Even in the staged photo, it looks awkward to hold and use. 80% of it’s size is the keyboard though you probably only use that about 5% of the time. Also, I have no idea why you would build anything remotely resembling a mouse-driven interface for this kind of device.

The designers of the Google TV remotes seem to be just trying to shove a keyboard and mouse into a different package. I haven’t used a Google TV, but based on these remotes, I would bet the rest of the interface is just as clunky.

On the other hand, I can see the Apple designers starting from scratch, sitting down on their couches in their living rooms and imagining what they would want to use. What would be comfortable to hold in your hand while flipping through apps/channels? Can I easily perform the basic functions with one hand? What would you want sitting on your coffee table? Would you feel comfortable tossing the remote across the room? You know, real-world usability testing.

This kind of design thinking seems so basic, I don’t understand how no other company¹ can get it.

¹ Of course I’m generalizing here. Apple isn’t the only company to get it. Lot’s of other companies do, but just not any of the big players. Boxee for example, is another player in the set-top box space, and they seem to get it as well.

For the next version of Gmail, one of Google’s goals is to get it to load in under a second. They stated that for them, “Speed is a feature”. I couldn’t agree more. It’s something that Google seems to take seriously in most of their applications. Their user interfaces are pretty minimal, but they’re fast. Sure, they could focus on adding other features, improving the design, making it look like a desktop version, but instead they focus on speed. I’m a bit torn here, as I love a beautiful interface. I’ve tried Mobile Me, and it’s really nice looking, has all the little details that Apple gets right, but damn it feels slow after using Gmail. If I had to make a choice, I would choose Gmail every time.

I think that’s the heart of the matter. Speed is a feature that is often overlooked in most applications - both native and web. Everyone tries to build the most beautiful and fancy user interface, but improving speed and responsiveness is one of the best ways to improve the user experience. I think few developers really make it a priority. If your web app is slow, you’ll probably enable gzip, combine and minify JavaScript, reduce HTTP requests, etc. But would you change your interface to make it faster? Would you make it a little less pretty, a little simpler, get rid of some images, use a solid background color instead of a gradient to see an increase in performance? Probably not.

For the next release of your app, I’d suggest try to make increasing speed the top priority. I for one would love to see the release notes for a new version that just said “Improved performance by 2x all around”. I know it’s something I’m going to start focusing on in my apps.